Re: Acurate background information is critical to the discussion of ID
- From: hersheyh@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 2 Oct 2005 16:50:33 -0700
Paul wrote:
> I have just tuned into this group. What a surprise at some of the
> misinformation and thoughtless posts. Some basics must be understood
> for a meaningful discussion on Intelligent Design.
>
> 1. Intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism
Since when is the claim that some unspecified "intelligent designer"
did something that poofed some system into existence at some
unspecified point in time, in some unspecified place, by some
unspecified mechanism beyond our powers to understand, not creationism?
How, exactly does that differ from creationism other than by being
vague about which "intelligent designer" did the what, where, when, and
how. YEC, of course, was specific about the what, where, and when, and
actually named their "intelligent designer", which is why their
particular form of creationism was not only testable, but tested and
found drastically wanting.
> 2 It does not challenge or address the fact that we have common
> evolutional ancestors with other animals.
Neither does it say that we did. Doing so would ruin the "big tent"
that allows it to be an effective *political* and *ideological* rather
than scientific idea. Science, of course, does have a lot to say about
the details of our common descent with other animals, and even has
disagreements that they quite openly acknowledge. ID is contentless.
>
> 3 Or the fact that Darwinian evolution occurs at the macro (whole
> animal) level-by whatever driving mechanism
Neither does it say that it does happen. ID is contentless on this as
well -- not for scientific reasons, but because it is at base nothing
but an ideological argument against the scientific method and a
political movement to get a religious "creator" belief presented *as
science* in the public schools.
>
> 4. Intelligent Design does challenge the theory that gradual
> selection through random mutation explains the progress of life at the
> macromolecule and cellular level.
The evidence does not support any teleological idea of "progress" in
evolution. And evolution at the organismal level of phenotype is
merely the organismal expression of evolution at the macromolecular and
cellular level. The genetic material that evolution works through is a
macromolecule, after all. And ultimately all evolution is discrete
rather than gradual. The smallest possible unit of evolutionary change
is a change in a single nucleotide. But the phenotypic effect of such
a change is not necessarily "small" and certainly is not gradual. It
is discrete.
Other types of mutational change involves things like duplication and
divergence, chimeric protein formation, polyploidy, insertion,
frameshifts, and deletions. Each of these types of mutational change
can lead to selectively relevant phenotypes (as well as selectively
neutral ones). I.e., there is no strong correlation between size of
mutational change and magnitude of phenotypic effect. BTW, most of the
"impossible to evolve" molecular systems that people like Behe put
forward (without, of course, a bit of evidence that they really are, in
principle, "impossible to evolve") involved duplication and divergence
and chimeric protein formation events. Not that they ever mention
these possibilities, of course.
> This challenge is based upon scientific knowledge gained in the last 30
> years that reveal the complexity of life at the biochemical level. Once
> we began to understand the complexity of proteins and the chemistry
> whereby a cell operates it became clear that natural selection via
> random changes cannot explain the development of life at that level.
The random changes of mutation are only the fuel of natural selection.
Natural selection is not random, but explicitly is a process that
always tends to favor adaptation to local conditions.
> This information was not available when the neo-Darwinists set the
> current dogma in concrete. It is advancements in the understanding of
> living cells that have created Intelligent Design theory. Darwin based
> his theory upon whole animal data.
Nah. It was the fact that the whole animal data examples kept coming
up DOA. There were, in many cases, ready examples of living organisms
that had intermediate features and, in the case of fossilizable
features, too many intermediate forms that kept appearing. Only the
most dishonest or deluded creationist could keep up the appearance that
organismal morphology changes could not happen. So they went to a
realm where they thought there was less liklihood of embarrassing
evidence to contradict their "god-of-the-gaps" watchmaker argument.
> Where is the science supporting that evolution at the biochemistry
> level is due entirely to random events?
All the changes at the biochemical level involve changes in DNA
sequence. Mutation is the ultimate source of all changes in DNA
sequence. And there simply is not that much difference, wrt the number
and kinds of coding sequences, between, say a mouse and a man, or even
a frog and a man. And the changes that do exist can be explained by
known types of mutational changes in DNA. Moreover, given the
knowledge of the rate of change due to selectively neutral mutations,
we can even say that there is no problem with explaining the amount of
change given that rate. When a change is due to selection, it happens
faster than change by neutral drift. Yet we can account for most of
the difference by using only the rate of neutral drift. Selection, in
fact, is largely conservative in nature, preserving function and
sequence rather than changing it. But that is a consequence of the
large degree of similarity in the genes of organisms.
> There is chemistry and
> mathematics which show that this cannot be the sole mechanism.
There is no such chemistry that I know of. And Dembski's math is
bogus.
>
> It is a disgrace the Neo-Darwinists have stooped to the level of trying
> to stop the consideration of Intelligent Design by tying it to religion
> and then to a violation of the first amendment.---
Hmmmm. A self-proclaimed science that proposes no testable claims
other than that it be able to declare certain features of life as
"impossible to evolve" based solely on their ignorance of how it could
occur naturally. And then they claim that this 'system' for which they
claim ignorance about a mechanism must, therefore, be designed and
poofed into existence (by an unspecified, but very powerful, almost
supernatural intelligent entity by an unspecified mechanism, at an
unspecified time, in an unspecified place) is not a *religious* belief?
If that description isn't of a supernatural (at least to our eyes)
magical creator working by mechanisms we can never hope to understand
to produce what we cannot currently understand, what is it?
> As opposed to
> engaging in honest discussion and proposed extensions in a search for
> the truth. We do have the information now to apply science to this
> important extension of our knowledge
So? What is stopping them, other than their disdain for methodological
naturalism, of course? I.e., their disdain for natural science. If
they have some actual science, why don't they present ID as a
scientific alternative rather than resort to saying to Dover and other
places: We don't want you to try to teach ID. Teach that there is a
controversy (of our own making) about evolution. That the controversy
includes absolutely bogus and very old YEC arguments is what is
interesting. That is all they have.
> By the way when was it decided that science cannot produce any results
> that are supportive of religion?
Science has said that people certainly can go into trances and have
religious visions. Science has pointed out that most people get
endorphin rushes from helping others. Science has no way to evaluate
the existence or non-existence of a supernatural agent(s) working via
supernatural mechanisms. That requires *faith* [you may have heard of
that term], not material evidence.
> And if it does-it is then automatically not science?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Acurate background information is critical to the discussion of ID
- From: Bobby D. Bryant
- Re: Acurate background information is critical to the discussion of ID
- Prev by Date: Re: Why there is no evidence humans evolved from anything
- Next by Date: Re: rainbows and physics
- Previous by thread: Re: Acurate background information is critical to the discussion of ID
- Next by thread: Re: Acurate background information is critical to the discussion of ID
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
